The Fundamental Polarization of Society

[Turtle]

Originally Posted by Turtle

...
(i bought a copy of Wood's new book Revolutionary Characters a few months back, but loaned it out right away; i have it back now & will give it a read & report back somewhere here.

pg.5;Revolutionary Characters: What Made the Founders Different by Gordon S. Wood

Originally Posted by Wood

In 1896 a popular historian of the period, John Bach McMaster, wrote an essay, entitled "The Political Depravity of the Founding Fathers," in which he contended that "in all the frauds and tricks that go to make up the worst form of practical politics, the men who founded our State and national governments were always our equals, and often our masters." According to McMaster, the founding generation was not above the worst kinds of political shenanigans, including the silencing of newspapers, the manipulation of votes, and the creation of partisan gerrymandering.

to say the climate today is more abysmal is to ignore the depths of depravity in such matters of the past. the price of freedom is constant vigilance. (the cost of freedom is often a good drubbing.)

[InfiniteNow]

Again, thanks for your feedback Turtle. I would like to clarify that part of my suggestion is that the size of the population and new modes of instant communication available today makes the scope of the issue greater than previous... Using your example, greater than during the US Revolution of the late 1700s.

[Turtle]

Originally Posted by InfiniteNow

Again, thanks for your feedback Turtle. I would like to clarify that part of my suggestion is that the size of the population and new modes of instant communication available today makes the scope of the issue greater than previous... Using your example, greater than during the US Revolution of the late 1700s.

greater in what way? it's trivialy obvious we have more people. aren't we back to measuring 'abysmal'? what elements are we to add to the 'scope'?

i agree it is novel we are carrying on this rather instantaneous politcal discussion, but i don't see any evidence that the fundamental polarization of views is at all different. pick any historical era you care that we have records of & the debates and tactics don't change.

i think any significant property that is predicated on the speed of communication and the number of communicators is an emergent property and by definition such properties are unknown until they, well, emerge. so while it 'seems' to you things are 'worse', you can't justify it factually.

ironic isn't it that on this issue we seem to be fundamentally polarized.

[Buffy]

I advocate the notion that larger populations and faster communications have an ameliorating effect in that it is harder to "fool all the people all the time." The Blogosphere is showing that in a big way.

There's also much more sophisticated techniques of delivery that can be subversive as well like Stephen Colbert (my kid is a huge fan of his, and it makes mom ever so prideful that her 12-year old is so sophisticated about satire)...

Alexander blasted me for being "hopelessly negative" about Net Neutrality, so maybe I'm trying to overcompensate here...

Have more faith in youth, they'll be complaining about their own kids in no time,
Buffy

[InfiniteNow]

Yes, the blogosphere does work both ways.

Per your Colbert refernce, he's counter weighted by Papa Bear O'Reilly. Who'da thunk it? Further reinforcement of the subject.

[Turtle]

Originally Posted by Buffy

I advocate the notion that larger populations and faster communications have an ameliorating effect in that it is harder to "fool all the people all the time." The Blogosphere is showing that in a big way.

There's also much more sophisticated techniques of delivery that can be subversive as well like Stephen Colbert (my kid is a huge fan of his, and it makes mom ever so prideful that her 12-year old is so sophisticated about satire)...

Have more faith in youth, they'll be complaining about their own kids in no time,
Buffy

accepting the ameliorating effect, and assigning it some arbitrary value, juxtapose the internet now with the introduction of the newspaper in the coffee houses of England and assign it a similarly arbitrary value to compare with the first. Do the values differ in your opinion? If so, by what degree? If not, then why not?

may i live long enough to witness the complaining,

[InfiniteNow]

If you truly seek the answer following the logic above, then perhaps, Turtle, you should also add literacy to your equation.

[Turtle]

Originally Posted by InfiniteNow

If you truly seek the answer following the logic above, then perhaps, Turtle, you should also add literacy to your equation.

that didn't take long at all. witness! turtle's logic is sound says InfiniteNow. trivially obvious is that in either case literacy is presumed, i.e., save for illustrations an illiterate person is not influenced by what is written.

PSsidebar, your honor? is the question of whether the internet will, can , or has increased the literacy rate for any populations a subject for another thread?

[InfiniteNow]

Originally Posted by Turtle

that didn't take long at all. witness! turtle's logic is sound says InfiniteNow. trivially obvious is that in either case literacy is presumed, i.e., save for illustrations an illiterate person is not influenced by what is written.

Originally Posted by Turtle

PSsidebar, your honor? is the question of whether the internet will, can , or has increased the literacy rate for any populations a subject for another thread?

Maybe. To be clear, my contention was not at all implying such, but whatever floats your boat, mate.


And, as we all know here on Hypography, that would be buoyancy.

[Buffy]

Now, now, you're both starting to sound like coberst....

coffee houses of London, coffee houses of the East Village, coffee houses in Berkeley, coffee houses at Firedoglake, coffee houses at Hypography...the hits just keep on coming!

Subversiveness is next to Godliness,
Buffy Guevara